NATO a mercainery force

Mugatu said:
tueartsboots said:
We also knew what the shelf life was and the fact he had no way of reproducing.

What's your source for that quote?
Neil Mackay (reputable journalist for The Sunday Herald) War on Truth <a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Truth-Neil-Mackay/dp/1904684157" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Truth-Neil- ... 1904684157</a>

I'd have to reread to quote chapter and verse. It is a most fascinating book, highly recommend it.

Rense.com



How Did Iraq Get Its WMD? -
We Sold Them To Saddam
By Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot
The Sunday Herald - UK
9-6-2

The US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's rep orts on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programmes.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licences issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programmes.'

Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licences for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.

It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the 'evidence of proof' that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction.

However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations des troyed most of Iraq's wea pons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now.

According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'.

Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.

Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.'

He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.

The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons programme.

Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked.

'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.'

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sundayherald.com/27572" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sundayherald.com/27572</a>

Email This Article




MainPage
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.rense.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.rense.com</a>


This Site Served by TheHostPros
 
nashark said:
cyberblue said:
Who are we really helping ?

The hundreds of thousands of living in Benghazi? The tens of millions who will likely get the chance to vote? People who care about other human beings?

Along with the rest of the 'oil' gang, you are out of your depth and causing offence when you discuss complex, sensitive issues with so little tact and so much simplicity.
Over the next few weeks months years we will see the full reprecutions of our actions pity we couldnt .wouldnt save the thousounds in former Yugoslavia & every other place there is a mad dictator ask your self why we pick & chose our fights .why dont we take on the mad men of Syria ,Iran . north Korea. lets play with the big boys & see what happens
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I've always been a little ambivalent and conflicted about our interventions in the Middle East.

I was instinctively opposed to the Iraq war and there has been appalling loss of life, but there is little doubt in my mind that the Iraqi people will be considerably better off as a result of that conflict.

The US had little choice but to get involved with Afganistan after 9/11. That said, I think there is little to justify an ongoing presence over there.

As for Libya I think, on balance, our involvement to the extent we have exercised it is a correct one. Gaddafi is/was a monster and the opportunity to remove him was too great. Moreover I think there is a real prospect of a more democratic and open Middle East emerging as a result of his downfall which has to be good for the future of mankind.

Furthermore I don't get hung up on the whole oil thing. Oil supply and stability is essential to maintain the thin veneer of civilisation on planet earth. If people want a snapshot of what oil insecurity would look like, the civil unrest earlier this month would look like a village fete by comparison. I like to live in the real world, as unpleasant as it is sometimes.

But I do now feel that enough is enough. I think that irrespective of what develops in the coming months and years we should leave the Middle East to sort itself out. We have, hopefully, given them a nudge in the right direction and they can create the societies that their people aspire to more readily as a result of that. But enough British (and non-British) blood has been shed and given the financial situation we currently find ourselves in I'm afraid that economical reality has its part to play in this policy decision too.

And for that reason Obama, I'm out.

I think I love you.
 
All these people that were sucked in by the oil bandwagon need to take their heads for a good hard wobble because you played right into the hands of bush! America and the west don't really give a monkeys about oil as long as they get it at the right price! And here's where the strategic thinking comes in!
The 9/11 attackers were Saudis, bin laden was a Saudi infact AQ is a predominantly Saudi organisation funded by rich Saudis. AQ is quite a powerful force in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi govt obviously refused to move against them, they even kicked the yanks out! Bush had to make a move and go for the head of the snake so to speak, and this is where in my opinion he played a blinder!
In that part of the middle east there was one common enemy who'd generally pissed everyone off and who no one would miss, he also happened to be sat on some pretty large oil reserves, saddam hussein. Saudi arabias economy is built around oil and the price per barrel needs to be kept above a certain level or the place goes tits up, what does bush do? He invades Iraq and plonks an American army on those huge oil reserves and threatens to turn the taps on and drop the price and generally fuck Saudi Arabia. Within a few months we are watching firefights between Saudi security services and AQ on the news. Strategically it will go down in history as one of the craftiest decisions ever taken. Bush is still a cnut though!
 
The "opposition" are not only murdering people they have captured & tied up they are fighting amongst each other (nice people)
 
BulgarianPride said:
Challenger1978 said:
des hardi said:
let me get this straight.... its better to invade libya then run the risk of not having petrol to fight future rioters....what a load of babyfat!!!!!

You do realize how important oil is to our society and its not just for filling up our cars ?

Don't you think investing the money into finding alternatives is much better than to spent it killing people for oil?

I wish there was an alternative but there are none. Forget about petrol and forget about diesel, they still have a massive impact btw. Plastics, fertilizers, insecticides, Bearing grease, Transformer coolant and several other key products are what we are really going to miss.
 
Sky news at it best ....

<a class="postlink" href="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video-inside-gaddafis-own-air-force-one-180220588.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video-inside-g ... 20588.html</a>

"It is yet another example of how Colonel Gaddafi concentrated Libya's oil wealth in his hands - a private jet fit for a super-rich business tycoon."

as if the PM/Obama travel on British Airways/AA/Emirates.........
 
Akai said:
Sky news at it best ....

<a class="postlink" href="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video-inside-gaddafis-own-air-force-one-180220588.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video-inside-g ... 20588.html</a>

"It is yet another example of how Colonel Gaddafi concentrated Libya's oil wealth in his hands - a private jet fit for a super-rich business tycoon."

as if the PM/Obama travel on British Airways/AA/Emirates.........


Arrant mischief making. You know full well that Mr Cameron only holidays in a Cornish B&B to which he cycles.
 
Only one nation has over one thousand military bases around the world.

They say there is problems in Libya but in the USA it is legal to use your paypal account to donate money to the Klu Klux Klan but it is illegal to use paypal to donate to Wikileaks.

Crossing the U.S.-Canada Border into the U.S increases a womans chances of being raped by 15 times.

During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's the U.S supplied 93% of the weapons to both sides in the conflict.

In 2009, Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize even as the U.S increased military spending by 8% that year.

The U.S goverment receives $2,650 billion in taxes each year, 54% ($1,449 billion) goes towards past and present military expenditures.

Anyone interested in doing my research into this kind of stuff look up Diego Garcia.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.